Author Archives: Darrell Goodliffe

Whenever a particularly horrific criminal case is in the media spotlight there are inevitably calls for the reintroduction of capital punishment. Either for the ‘specific case in question’ or, more generally, for the specific type of crime committed. It’s to be expected from ‘foaming at the mouth’ right-wingers, but such views are also shared by many members of the general public.

We have seen that this week on Lib Dem Voice and the comments on Baby P. Nobody is under any illusions about the horrific nature of this case and the deplorable nature of the crimes committed. I think …

Stephen Tall, starting a debate last week on the Lib Dems’ position in the polls, unintentionally started a quite different debate regarding the specific issue of smoking and liberty.

Laying my cards on the table from the start; I am a smoker and have been for over a year although I am in the throes of trying to cut back. Despite this, when it was introduced I just about came out in favour of the ban because I think there was enough evidence that the public health concerns are genuine, and, ultimately, I was prepared to trade a little of my individual liberty in this instance. You can debate the scientific evidence for and against this point ad infinitum, but there is also the issue that smoking smells pretty terrible etc, etc.

In these circumstances I found it possible to support the restriction on my liberty because I was imposing on others. Could you possibly extend that logic to support a ban in all public places? Yes, I guess you possibly could, but this would be a point where a line is crossed because the effects of second-hand smoking were exacerbated by being in a confined space. Ultimately smokers are usually aware of the risks and it is their decision whether to take that risk or not. It is a question of whether people have the right to control and govern what they do with their own bodies. Smoking in a confined space took that right away from other people, but smoking in an open space where air can circulate does not.

The Guardian reported recently that the latest smoking figures show nine million people still smoke – which is a minority but nonetheless a sizeable one. Disproportionately it is people on lower incomes who smoke the most (although income is not a sole determinant):

According to Professor Martin Jarvis, a psychologist at University College London and a leading specialist in the field of smoking and health inequality, this is not a question solely of income: every main indicator of a lower socio-economic status is likely, independent of each of the others, to predict a higher rate of smoking. If your educational level is below the average, you are more likely to smoke. If you live in rented or overcrowded accommodation, you are more likely to smoke. Ditto if you do not have access to a car, are unemployed, or on state income benefit.”

So, people who think higher taxation is the answer should consider this; that you are already hitting people hard who are at the bottom of the pile.